• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Brown Eggs

Fluorescence Infrared Multispectral UV Camera UV Lens
16 replies to this topic

#1 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,918 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 03 January 2020 - 23:00

I broke a carton of eggs. So thought why not boil a couple still mostly intact eggs and see if I can see if there is a UV-C threshold. In that protein will absorb at 280nm, but backbone will absorb at 230nm. So if I can see below 230nm with my new filter, I am hoping for it to look all black.

Using single Germicidal 15W bulb with KSS 60mm f4 lens and UV imager.

193bp20 filter:
Attached Image: 193bp20.jpg

253bp25 filter:
Attached Image: 253bp25.jpg

Using two UVB 200 Exoterra 26 W bulbs with KSS 60mm f4 lens and UV imager.

303bp10 with 2mm U340 filter to cut down back reflection (UVB Exoterra bulb emits 302nm Mercury line only for first 12 minutes after turning on):
Attached Image: 303bp10.jpg

313bp25:
Attached Image: 313bp25.jpg

335bp10:
Attached Image: 335bp10.jpg

370bp15:
Attached Image: 370bp15.jpg

390bp25
Attached Image: 390bp25.jpg

405bp10
Attached Image: 405bp10.jpg

Visible reference image:
Attached Image: Visible.jpg

Using my full spectrum converted EM1 I took the following using the two ExoTerra 200 26W bulbs

313bp25 with 330WB80 improved filter:
Attached Image: EM1_313bp25_330WB80_UVB.jpg

Baader venus filter:
Attached Image: BaaderVenusU_UVBlight_UVA.jpg

Switching lights to two 365nm LED bulbs with 1.9mm ZWB1 filters to block all visible leak (these do work, no 405nm line detected)

Baader Venus U Filter:
Attached Image: BaaderVenusU_365nm_UVA.jpg

UV/Visible with just a 2mm S8612:
Attached Image: UV_Vis_S8612only_365nmlight.jpg

UV induced visible fluorescence with Sigma SD15 block filter on camera lens:
Attached Image: UVIVF_SD15filter.jpg

UV induced visible and UV Induced IR fluorescence with just Tiffen 2A filter on camera lens:
Attached Image: UVIVIRF_2Aonly.jpg

UV induced IR fluorescence with LP 720 filter on camera:
Attached Image: UVIIRF_720LP.jpg

405nm induced IR fluorescence with LP 720 filter on camera:
Attached Image: Induced_IR_405nmLED.jpg

2.2mm BG39 on White LED bulb induced IR fluorescence with LP 720 filter on camera:
Attached Image: Induced_IR_BG39_whiteLEDlight.jpg

Hallogen bulb used for IR with LP 720 filter on camera:
Attached Image: IR_HallogenLight.jpg

#2 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,281 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 03 January 2020 - 23:10

What a fascinating series! The 193nm and 253nm seem not too different aside from noise in this case. Quite interesting to see the black albumen. The "UV/Visible with just a 2mm S8612" was probably my favorite image.

#3 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,918 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 04 January 2020 - 00:40

Yes not much difference between my 193bp20 and the 253bp25 filter. So I most likely am not pushing enough 185nm line out my germicidal light.
I will have to find something that absorbs best at or below 230nm. I was hoping for the amide backbone of the protein in the egg to really go black. But it may not be the best as darkness does happen below 280nm due to the aromatic amino acids.
I will have to see if a fat works better. Or find a purish protein with no aromatic amino acids.

#4 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,195 posts

Posted 04 January 2020 - 00:54

David, very interesting set. :-)

#5 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,281 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 04 January 2020 - 02:14

Here's how each of the parts changes with wavelength. Poor man's imaging spectrometer!

Attached Image: Egg in UV spectrum.jpg

#6 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,918 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 04 January 2020 - 04:41

Andy nice new personal image photo. Didn't recognize you at first.

Your summary image is interesting, however as you know can't really look at it that way. The lights change between 253 and 303. Also I am slightly lazy and still haven't placed the black sheet in the front of the lens. So I am still getting slight hot spotting.
What I can look at is if their is any contrast difference between top second and third slices divided out mentally. As I would hope for the yellow and white to even out with similar deep absorption.

But even that is tricky as you can see at 405bp10, its getting close to the fuzzy range of the imager and between those also has low contrast. Its possible the phosphorus screen is not designed to image below 250nm, and thus is simularly fuzzy.


#7 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,281 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 04 January 2020 - 04:52

Oh, the lights changing do affect it a bit but you can definitely get the “gist” of which way things are going.

#8 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,918 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:07

Whats great about showing the images in succession like this is I just noticed something I hadn't seen before.

Edited:
Holly lucky cross section Batman.
I seem to have caught the chalazae in the hard boiled egg. This apparently is a connection to hold the yoke in the center of the egg. Its not an umbilical cord.

This is visible in the center hard boiled egg of the 335bp10 image, and the Em1 images in UVb (most striking) and glowing in the visible induced images.

Edited by dabateman, 04 January 2020 - 07:02.


#9 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 04 January 2020 - 10:40

Great set of images David.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#10 OlDoinyo

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 875 posts
  • Location: North Carolina

Posted 04 January 2020 - 23:42

What camera was used here? It is my impression that many digital cameras are virtually blind below about 340 nm(more or less,) leading me to ask if the nominally shorter-wavelength images are possibly of longer-wavelength stray light rather than being images of the filter's central wavelength. With a sensor much more sensitive to the longer wavelengths, especially if the filter's out-of-band blocking is less than perfect, this could be a problem.

#11 Bill De Jager

    Member

  • Members
  • 311 posts
  • Location: Northern California, USA

Posted 04 January 2020 - 23:53

Really good work, David, and really interesting to look at.
Studying the botany and plant geography of California and western North America for almost 50 years.

#12 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,281 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 05 January 2020 - 00:32

View PostOlDoinyo, on 04 January 2020 - 23:42, said:

What camera was used here? It is my impression that many digital cameras are virtually blind below about 340 nm(more or less,) leading me to ask if the nominally shorter-wavelength images are possibly of longer-wavelength stray light rather than being images of the filter's central wavelength. With a sensor much more sensitive to the longer wavelengths, especially if the filter's out-of-band blocking is less than perfect, this could be a problem.
It's not the camera alone, it's a camera plus a fluorescent screen and an image amplifier scope. The screen is sensitive to UV-C through 500nm, and it converts the UV to visible light, which the scope amplifies, and the camera then records. (If you look at the scope, you can "see" UV with your eyes even!)

Edited by Andy Perrin, 05 January 2020 - 00:35.


#13 Mark

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 566 posts
  • Location: Massachusetts, USA

Posted 05 January 2020 - 01:00

First - I like the "Poor man's imaging spectrometer"!

Second - thank you... now I know what that 'skin' is called, between the shell and egg. And now I'm hungry for some reason.

Also, nice images btw. Especially your "313bp25 with 330WB80 improved filter" which looks close to the "253bp25 filter" with the UV imager, but with much nicer detail/sharpness.

#14 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,918 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 05 January 2020 - 07:11

View PostOlDoinyo, on 04 January 2020 - 23:42, said:

What camera was used here? It is my impression that many digital cameras are virtually blind below about 340 nm(more or less,) leading me to ask if the nominally shorter-wavelength images are possibly of longer-wavelength stray light rather than being images of the filter's central wavelength. With a sensor much more sensitive to the longer wavelengths, especially if the filter's out-of-band blocking is less than perfect, this could be a problem.

The monochrome series using filters from 193 to 405 was captured with Sirchie KRIMESITE Scope Forensic Fingerprint Imager KSS100A, which has a quartz 60mm macro lens and a phosphorus imaging screen. This is intended to look at fingerprints using the superglue trick. I have coupled a stock Panasonic GM5 to the eye piece magnifier and capture a series of frames from the green image that imager provides. The imager comes with a WG280 filter and a 253.7bp25 filter. I have removed the WG280 filter and replaced it with a 193bp20 filter. I slide the whole rear filter assembly out when I want to use other filters, which I add to the front of the 60mm Macro lens with a 37mm to 52 stepup ring, as all my small 25mm filters are on a 52mm to 25mm ring.

My Kolari full spectrum converted Olympus Em1 mk1 can see using the 253bp25 filter. However it requires a 60second live view setting. So you manually focus slightly and wait 60 seconds to see if you are in focus. This is under extremely dangerous lights. So after missing focus and taking an hour to get nothing, you stop doing that and just use the Sirchie KRIMESITE Scope Forensic Fingerprint Imager KSS100A. The exposure setting on the GM5 is ISO 200, f5.6 (on an Olympus 30mm f3.5 macro lens) and electronic shutter speed of 1/4 to 1/6 for every image.

However, with UVB lights like the ExoTerra UVB 200 26W, you can get an excellent 313nm mercury lines image with much more reasonable focusing time on the Olympus Em1. Using a dangerous G8t5e light, which has a very strong 297/302nm mercury lines you can see at 300nm. But I wasn't seeing much striking difference between the 313nm and 303nm images and 313nm is easier to capture and slightly safer. So I typically just go to 313nm for UVB with my Olympus Em1 and Pentax UAT 85mm lens.


#15 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,973 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 06 January 2020 - 01:02

Those fluorescent red eggshells are very cool!

This is the series which has everything. Way to go, David !!!


(So, like, where is the HAM??)
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#16 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,281 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 06 January 2020 - 01:15

View PostAndrea B., on 06 January 2020 - 01:02, said:

(So, like, where is the HAM??)
I want to know that also!

#17 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,918 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 06 January 2020 - 01:22

View PostAndy Perrin, on 06 January 2020 - 01:15, said:


I want to know that also!

I didn't think the eggs were green enough to need ham.